Stakeholder Pensions

Lord Newby: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether they have any plans to extend the 1 per cent cap on fees chargeable for stakeholder pensions to unit trusts and investment bonds.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The Government recently issued a consultation document on product design proposals for Sandler stakeholder products setting out proposals for an extended range of simple, low cost, risk-controlled investment products and discussing issues relating to charges.

Irish Republic: Human Rights

Lord Laird: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Further to the Written Answer by the Lord Privy Seal on 9 January (WA 231) concerning human rights in the Irish Republic, what is the measurement which indicates that the republic's government have strengthened the protection of human rights to at least the equivalent level of protection in Northern Ireland.

Lord Williams of Mostyn: This is a matter for the Irish Government. The noble Lord may wish to contact the Department of Foreign Affairs, Iveagh House, St Stephen's Green, Dublin 2 which has responsibility for the above subject.

Detention Centres: Chaplaincy Arrangements

Lord Hylton: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether sensitive and caring chaplaincy arrangements for members of all faiths are important in preventing violence, self-harm and suicide in all immigration, detention and removal centres; and what plans they have in this regard.

Lord Filkin: The Detention Centre Rules (SI 2001 No. 238) make provision for the regulation and management of all centres in the detention estate. They provide, among other things, for matters such as the welfare and privileges of detained persons, their religious observance and healthcare. I am satisfied that current practices and procedures throughout the estate are more than satisfactory in providing a good level of care for detainees.

Asylum Seekers: Accommodation Centres

Lord Dubs: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether any further consideration has been given to potential sites for accommodation centres.

Lord Filkin: We are announcing today that we are considering applying for planning approval to develop an accommodation centre for asylum seekers at HMS Daedalus, Gosport, Hampshire.
	Because the need to establish the accommodation centres trial is urgent, the Government are committed as a matter of policy to developing accommodation centres for 750 asylum seekers each at DSDC Bicester and the former RAF Newton. For the trial to be effective it is necessary to have a policy commitment to these two sites and we will therefore continue vigorously to make our case to the planning inquiries established to consider our proposals.
	We previously announced our intention to trial a smaller model of accommodation centre for up to 400 single men only. We consider the site at HMS "Daedalus" to be suitable for this model, and to that extent it is a key element of the policy to trial accommodation centres.
	As before, we will comply with the planning process with this new site and we hope that we will make considerable progress in the consultation process with the local community and councils.
	After detailed consideration, we have decided not to pursue the sites at Sully Hospital, South Glamorgan; AirWest, Edinburgh; and RAF Hemswell, Lincolnshire for the purposes of the trial. No planning notifications will therefore be submitted for these sites.
	Site searching continues and we are looking in particular for an alternative site in Scotland to replace AirWest, Edinburgh. When a potential site has been identified we will consult Scottish Ministers in line with Section 40 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002.

Cambridge University Marmoset Projects

Lord Dubs: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether they will publish the report by the Chief Inspector of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Inspectorate of his review following allegations made by the British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection of aspects of research projects at Cambridge University involving marmosets.

Lord Filkin: The Government have today published a report by the Chief Inspector of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Inspectorate, following his review of aspects of three animal research projects being conducted at Cambridge University. Copies of the report have been placed in the Library and are being put onto the Home Office website—www.homeoffice.gov.uk.
	The Home Office licensed the three projects under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986. They comprise studies relevant to various human neurological disorders, such as amnesia, psychoses, stroke-related conditions, dementia, and Parkinson's and Huntington's diseases. These studies involve subjecting marmosets to surgical and other procedures, including behavioural and cognitive testing.
	The research has been the subject of a campaign report and video produced last year by the British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection (BUAV) in which a number of detailed allegations are made based on the testimony of, and material gathered by, an undercover sympathiser. These allegations call into question the severity limits and bands assigned to the projects, challenge other aspects of the licensing decisions, raise compliance issues and record concerns about the standards of care given to the marmosets.
	In the light of the BUAV material I asked the chief inspector for a report on the assignment of the severity limits and bands concerned and for his advice on the licensing decisions and on compliance with the licence authorities.
	The chief inspector's review has been thorough and his detailed report addresses all the key issues. In it he refers to the official published material about severity limits (relating to individual authorised procedures) and severity bands (relating to entire projects). He concludes that the severity limits and bands for these projects, none of which is classed as higher than moderate, have been correctly assigned in accordance with the published criteria. In reaching this view he has taken account of all relevant factors. These include the degree and duration of suffering likely to be experienced by the marmosets as a result of the procedures, the use of analgesics and special post-operative care, and the controls in place to ensure appropriate action if the severity limits seem unexpectedly likely to be breached.
	The BUAV claim that there is a widespread misallocation of severity limits and bands in non-human primate research, so that the true amount of laboratory animal suffering is being concealed. In view of this, the chief inspector has also examined 37 other licensed academic projects where primates are used in procedures placed in all the different severity categories. He found the limits and bands had been correctly assigned in all cases.
	In reviewing the licensing decisions for the Cambridge projects, the chief inspector points out that the lead researchers concerned have long experience in this type of neurological research, their work has been peer-reviewed by funding bodies and their findings have been published as they have emerged. Consideration of two of the licence applications involved specialist members of the inspectorate in addition to the local inspector, and in all cases account was taken of all the detailed information on the application forms, as well as of material from other sources. The chief inspector is satisfied that the decisions were correct and properly taken with due regard to all the criteria set out in Section 5 of the 1986 Act.
	The chief inspector considers that the marmoset facility at Cambridge University meets, and in some respects exceeds, the standards of housing and care set out in the relevant Home Office codes of practice, and that some examples are to be found there of best practice. He considers that there is a culture of care within the establishment and that the marmoset colony is generally healthy. This is borne out by veterinary records and previous inspection reports, as well as by the chief inspector's own observations.
	The Government are grateful to the chief inspector for having produced a comprehensive and balanced report. We accept his main findings and conclusions. In particular we are satisfied that the Cambridge University marmoset projects have been properly licensed and assigned the correct severity limits and bands. We are also satisfied that the projects, the value and importance of which must be recognised, are well run and that the marmosets are generally well looked after. No evidence has been found to support any of the BUAV's main contentions.
	The chief inspector has additionally made some recommendations on matters arising from his review. There are three addressed to the Government. The first is that there should be a forum of those who breed and use marmosets for scientific purposes, so that contemporary best practice can be shared in a structured way. The second is that consideration should be given in the next review of the published annual procedures statistics to a possible remedy for a technical problem encountered in capturing the data relating to all the uses made of some laboratory animals. The third is that further consideration should be given as to whether the severity limit and band labels should continue to be used.
	These are constructive recommendations and we fully accept them. I have asked the inspectorate to set up the proposed forum for licensed breeders and users of marmosets. The point about the statistics will be considered in due course as part of a wider review of the annual published statistics. I have asked for the question of future use of the terminology of severity limits and bands to be considered as part of the review currently being undertaken by the Animal Procedures Committee of the cost-benefit assessment required under Section 5 of the 1986 Act.
	A few technical infringements were discovered during the chief inspector's review on which appropriate action has been taken. These do not detract either from the chief inspector's main findings or our acceptance of them. Nothing seriously untoward has been discovered about the licensing and running of these projects at Cambridge University, and on those aspects there are no grounds for significant concern or further action.

Asylum Appeals

Lord Marlesford: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	For the most recent 12-month period for which figures are available, what is the total number of asylum cases which went to appeal and the total sum in legal aid which was paid out in respect of these cases; and in how many cases the appeal was upheld.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: In the period October 2001 to September 2002, 60,450 appeals were determined by adjudicators, of which 13,240 were upheld. The figures do not include applications for leave to appeal to the Immigration Appeal Tribunal or hearings dealt with by the tribunal.
	It is not possible to link the amount paid in legal aid to these cases.

Environmental Offences

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Which United Kingdom companies were prosecuted in 2002 for serious environmental offences which resulted in a fine of over £1,000; what were the nature of the offences; and how much they were fined.

Lord Whitty: The Environment Agency is the primary agency in England and Wales that prosecutes environmental offences. Information on offences prosecuted by the Environment Agency in 2002 is listed in tabular form below, broken down into the eight regions of England and Wales for which the agency has responsibility, and into the top 10 fines for each region. Prosecution details for Scotland and Northern Ireland, and those for offences not prosecuted by the Environment Agency in England and Wales, are not held centrally.
	During 2002, there were 357 prosecutions brought against companies by the Environment Agency: 855 offences were successfully prosecuted, which led to fines totalling £3,120,423. The average fine per offence was £3,649.62 and the average fine per prosecution was £8,740.68.
	The figure of 357 prosecutions includes those where companies were prosecuted on more than one occasion during the year, for example United Utilities Water plc, or for more than one offence.
	The top 10 fines in each agency region are shown in tabular form below.
	
		Thames Region—Top 10 fines
		
			 Company Name Nature of Offence(s) Total Fines (£) 
			 Thames Water Utilities Limited Water Quality £155,000.00 
			 BP Oil (UK) Limited Water Quality £60,000.00 
			 Totalfinaelf UK Limited Water Quality £54,000.00 
			 S H Pratt and Company (Bananas) Limited Waste £53,000.00 
			 S Grundon (Ewelme) Limited Water Quality £50,000.00 
			 English, Welsh & Scottish Railway Limited Water Quality £24,000.00 
			 Budgens Stores Limited Water Quality £16,000.00 
			 Honda Trading Europe Limited Water Quality £12,000.00 
			 Nippon 2000 Spares and Tyres Company Limited Water Quality £12,000.00 
			 BP Mitchell Haulage Contractors Limited Waste £10,000.00 
			 Yoplait Dairy Crest Limited Water Quality £10,000.00 
		
	
	
		Anglian Region—Top 10 fines
		
			 Company Name Nature of Offence(s) Total Fines (£) 
			 Anglian Water Services Limited Water Quality £270,000.00 
			 Shanks Waste Services Limited Waste £87,000.00 
			 Greenvale Foods Limited Water Quality £49,000.00 
			 Banham Poultry Limited Water Quality £24,000.00 
			 Jackson Building Centres Limited Waste £22,500.00 
			 Welding Alloys Limited Waste £15,000.00 
			 James A Gooding Limited Water Quality £15,000.00 
			 Junckers Limited Waste £13,500.00 
			 Middlebrook Mushrooms Limited Water Quality £12,000.00 
			 Easco Limited Waste £10,000.00 
		
	
	
		Welsh Region—Top 10 fines
		
			 Company Name Nature of Offence(s) Total Fines (£) 
			 Kronospan Limited Water Resources £65,000.00 
			 Dwr Cymru Cyf Water Quality £24,000.00 
			 F & R Dunlop Services Limited Waste £13,000.00 
			 T Richard Jones (Betws) Limited Waste £8,500.00 
			 Amgen Rhondaa Limited Water Quality £8,000.00 
			 Macob Limited Water Quality £8,000.00 
			 Global Foods Limited Waste £8,000.00 
			 Konica Business Machines (UK) Limited Waste £8,000.00 
			 Rockfon Limited Waste £5,250.00 
			 South Wales Mineral Recycling Limited Waste £5,000.00 
			 Allied Carpet Group plc Water Quality £5,000.00 
			 Hogan (Construction) Ltd Waste £5,000.00 
			 Knolton Farmhouse Cheese Ltd Water Quality £5,000.00 
		
	
	
		Midlands Region—Top 10 fines
		
			 Company Name Nature of Offence(s) Total Fines (£) 
			 Midland Waste Management Limited Waste £54,000.00 
			 Lear Corporation (Nottingham) Limited Waste £40,000.00 
			 Lear Corporation UK Interior Systems Limited Waste £40,000.00 
			 Torgam Developments Limited Waste £30,000.00 
			 Europackaging plc Waste £25,000.00 
			 Computer 2000 Distribution Limited Waste £25,000.00 
			 R Calder Skip Hire (Kidderminster) Limited Waste £20,200.00 
			 B & D Electroplaters Limited Water Quality £20,000.00 
			 Lear Corporation (UK) Limited Waste £16,000.00 
			 Bowood Event Hire Limited Water Quality £13,500.00 
		
	
	
		North East Region—Top 10 fines
		
			 Company Name Nature of Offence(s) Total Fines (£) 
			 Cheepa Skips UK Limited Waste £25,000.00 
			 Huntsman Petrochemicals (UK) Limited Water Quality £23.000.00 
			 Yorkshire Water Services Limited Water Quality £22,000.00 
			 E Harper (York) Limited Water Quality £15,000.00 
			 Hedon Salads Limited Waste £15,000.00 
			 Leo Sawrij Limited Waste £10,500.00 
			 Peter Ward Homes Limited Waste £7,000.00 
			 Tillertech Limited Water Quality £7,000.00 
			 J N Bentley Limited Water Quality £6,000.00 
			 Contract Heat & Power Limited Waste £5,000.00 
			 Russell Construction (York) Limited Waste £5,000.00 
			 MKM Building Supplies Limited Waste £5,000.00 
			 Tay Homes plc Water Quality £5,000.00 
		
	
	
		North West Region—Top 10 fines
		
			 Company Name Nature of Offence(s) Total Fines (£) 
			 United Utilities Water plc Water Quality £327,500.00 
			 Stationery Box Limited Waste £25,000.00 
			 Onyx Highmoor Limited Waste £21,000.00 
			 3C Waste Limited Waste £17,000.00 
			 Bernstein Group plc Waste £16,000.00 
			 P W Greenhalgh & Company Limited IPC £15,000.00 
			 Sita (Lancashire) Limited Waste £14,000.00 
			 Paul Hartmann Limited Waste £11,500.00 
			 Bomacks Contractors Limited Waste £10,800.00 
			 Interbrew UK Limited Water Quality £10,000.00 
			 B Dugdale & Son Limited Water Quality £10,000.00 
		
	
	
		Southern Region—Top 10 fines
		
			 Company Name Nature of Offence(s) Total Fines (£) 
			 Albury Construction Limited Water Quality £40,000.00 
			 A & J Bull (Southern) Limited Waste £31,000.00 
			 Southern Water Services Limited Water Quality £21,000.00 
			 Skipaway Limited Waste £20,000.00 
			 St. James Haulage Limited Waste £12,500.00 
			 CPS Group Limited Waste £10,000.00 
			 Biffa Waste Services Limited Waste £8,500.00 
			 Thames Water Utilities Limited Water Quality £5,000.00 
			 R.H. Thompson & Company Limited Waste £4,500.00 
			 Hanson Quarry Products Europe Limited Water Quality £3,500.00 
		
	
	
		South West Region—Top 10 fines
		
			 Company Name Nature of Offence(s) Total Fines (£) 
			 Faccenda Group 
			 (South) Limited 
			  Water Quality £75,000.00 
			 South West Water 
			 Limited 
			  Water Quality £45,000.00 
			 Hills Mineral & 
			 Waste Limited 
			  Waste £20,000.00 
			 Wessex Water 
			 Services Limited 
			  Water Quality £18,000.00 
			 Lawson Demolition 
			 & Crushing Limited 
			  Waste £13,025.00 
			 Consilium 
			 Construction 
			 Limited 
			  Waste £13,000.00 
			 Tesco Stores 
			 Limited 
			  Water Quality £10,000.00 
			 Biffa Waste Services 
			 Limited 
			  Waste £7,000.00 
			 Bath Demolition 
			 and Crushing 
			 Company Limited 
			  Waste £5,250.00 
			 Valley Waste 
			 Management 
			 Limited 
			  Water Resources £5,000.00 
			 Bourne Leisure 
			 Limited 
			  Water Resources £5,000.00 
			 Converters 
			 (European) Limited 
			  Waste £5,000.00 
			 T J Brent Limited 
			  Waste £5,000.00 
			 Hall & Woodhouse 
			 Limited 
			  Water Quality £5,000.00

NHS Foundation Trusts

Baroness Noakes: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Further to the Written Answer by Lord Hunt of Kings Heath on 15 January (WA 45), whether the existence of a private finance initiative contract has any bearing on the prudential borrowing limit to be set for National Health Service foundation trusts; and, if so, how it will be taken into account.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: Any private finance initiative charges paid by NHS foundation trusts will reduce their ability to service borrowing. Each NHS foundation trust will be able to borrow up to a prudential limit assessed by the independent regulator based on the individual NHS foundation trust's ability to service the borrowing.

Television Licence Fees

Lord Hogg of Cumbernauld: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether they will announce the television licence fees that will come into force this year.

Baroness Blackstone: On 21 February 2000, the Government announced their conclusions on the recommendations of the independent review panel on the future funding of the BBC. In addition to a range of measures designed to improve BBC efficiency and accountability, the Government introduced a new funding formula providing for changes in the licence fee of RPI plus 1.5 per cent for each year from 2000–01 to 2006–07. This formula will enable the BBC to provide a strong and distinctive schedule of high quality programmes and remain at the forefront of broadcasting technology.
	Application of the RPI figure of 1.7 per cent for the year to September 2003, plus 1.5 per cent, to the current unrounded licence fees produces new rounded totals of £116 for a colour licence and £38.50 for a black and white licence. The necessary regulations to bring these fees into force will be laid before the House in due course. The changes will come into effect from 1 April.

Public Libraries

Lord Hughes of Woodside: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What proposals they have about the role of public libraries.

Baroness Blackstone: I am pleased to repeat the announcement made yesterday by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport that the Government's new strategic framework for the public library service, Framework for the Future, has been published and copies of the document have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.
	The starting point for the strategy is how best to meet the needs of library users and encourage new users. Framework for the Future outlines a range of initiatives designed to promote reading and learning for everyone, giving special attention to those who have literacy problems. It aims to bring access to the digital communications revolution to all and to help communities work together more effectively through better sharing of community information and by creating opportunities for different groups to work together. The new strategy will encourage libraries to build on existing strengths and ensure they position themselves at the hearts of the communities they serve.
	Public libraries are a valuable infrastructure, which have the potential to help local authorities deliver across a range of local services. The best libraries are doing so already. By clarifying key priorities and highlighting best practice, Framework for the Future provides a focus for future work across the sector. It provides a basis for authorities to prioritise and plan services to meet the needs of citizens, while being flexible enough to respond to local differences.
	The launch of the policy document marks the beginning of the next stage in developing the stategy. We will be working closely with the Advisory Council on Libraries, Resource, the Council for Museums, Archives and Libraries and leaders in local government, libraries and education to deliver the strategy.
	The document will also be available on the DCMS website at http://www.culture.gov.uk/heritage/pl-frame work.html

Royal Parks

Lord Dubs: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What progress has been made in the proposed change of status of the royal parks from an agency to a non-departmental public body.

Baroness Blackstone: The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport announced on 20 July 2001 her intention to establish the Royal Parks Agency as a non-departmental public body (NDPB). The review of the Royal Parks Agency which recommended the change of status for the parks did not take into account the issue for reclaiming VAT in its assessment. Following the announcement of the change of status, there were discussions with HM Customs and Excise and it has been confirmed that the royal parks would lose their entitlement to reclaim VAT on building and maintenance work if they became a NDPB. This would result in a loss of approximately £3 million a year income, which the parks are unable to absorb. The decision has therefore been made that the parks should remain an agency of the department.
	Our aim is still to modernise the agency and a programme of change to improve the efficiency and management of the parks is being taken forward. This includes:
	a new and strengthened ministerial advisory board. The board will provide the agency with strategic direction and advice to Ministers on the agency's broad direction and performance against targets;
	appointment of two non-executive directors to the Royal Parks Management Board, one of whom will be drawn from the advisory board;
	supporting the setting up of the Royal Parks Foundation, a charitable trust to raise funds for the parks;
	secondment of a member of the Senior Civil Service from the department to the royal parks to strengthen the parks' corporate and business management;
	a new funding agreement which ties the royal parks more closely to delivering the department's core agenda;
	application to the royal parks of all the recommendations in the report Better Government Services: Executive Agencies in the 21st Century.